Maybe it's just me, but that is a lot of money to throw into the market at once. I would DCA. If the market goes up, great. If the market goes down, then I would throw more money into the market along with my DCA strategy.

Last edited by crowd79 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 12:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

REIT's are more volatile and risky than many stocks in my opinion. They are in no way a substitute for bonds. Your portfolio is 100% equity as you state it. Now if you are investing 400K as you say, and then keeping 100K in cash that is a different story.

Showing up at the donut shop at 5 am to get them hot out of the oil is an example of successful market timing.

REIT's are more volatile and risky than many stocks in my opinion. They are in no way a substitute for bonds. Your portfolio is 100% equity as you state it. Now if you are investing 400K as you say, and then keeping 100K in cash that is a different story.

Right. I don't see much distinction between cash and bonds at today's SEC yields. Therefore, 100k cash is 25pct in "fixed income". That's OK but otherwise I'd raise a red flag.

I don't have a problem with your asset allocation if your time horizon in over 20 years. Put it all in now. When interest rates rise, buy into bonds. I am in that boat, doing the same thing with a smaller amount of money.

If time horizon is less, then I agree with other posters that AA should be changed.

SC Hoosier

I live in No Payment Land. It is wonderful, and I'd love for you to live here too.

livesoft wrote:If you need us to vote on it, then you are not really committed. You need to get to the point where you think, "I don't care what anybody else thinks ... I'm going all in!"

Let me know when you do this because that's the day I will probably sell everything.

+1

+2. I went back and read some of your past posts. If they are indicative of your thinking then it looks to me like you have some more thinking/learning to do. You're all over the map. You also seem a bit conflicted re: REITS.

livesoft wrote:If you need us to vote on it, then you are not really committed. You need to get to the point where you think, "I don't care what anybody else thinks ... I'm going all in!"

Let me know when you do this because that's the day I will probably sell everything.

Livesoft, I have been thinking this. I an not a timer by any means but maybe I am psychologically a negative market timer. I am in the process of DCAing into stocks and bonds over a few years. let's not restart LS vs DCA as I couldn't sleep with a lump sum as it is my whole life's savings. So it is not optimal but works for me. I have seen the stock market go up every day. I have seen small investors now buying in after years away according to all reports. Newspapers are flashing how great stocks are to return to. And everybody says bonds are terrible risks. I have a feeling bonds will do fine and if anything, the stocks might be frothy. When small investors are putting billions into stock funds, somebody is on the opposite end of every trade. I won't deviate from my 2-3 year plan unless there is a major stock correction like 20% or more and then will accelerate the stock investments.

livesoft wrote:If you need us to vote on it, then you are not really committed. You need to get to the point where you think, "I don't care what anybody else thinks ... I'm going all in!"

Let me know when you do this because that's the day I will probably sell everything.

+1

+2. I went back and read some of your past posts. If they are indicative of your thinking then it looks to me like you have some more thinking/learning to do. You're all over the map. You also seem a bit conflicted re: REITS.

I agree. Reasoning that one has a 3-fund portfolio except that REITs are substituted for bonds causes one to worry that you have not understood the basic starting point of determining stock/bond allocation. You may also not understand what a REIT is. It is also concerning that an additional $100K is "held back" when it would seem more rational to include that asset in the asset allocation. I assume you might be in Canada where we interpret GIC to be similar to a US CD, and not to some kind of indexed annuity insurance product.

It could still be that your proposed allocation is actually ok, although it is very risky*, as pointed out by a previous poster. Personally I would not favor starting out in investing with 20% (or is it really 16%) tilted to REITs.

*80/20 is very risky. If you want to think of the part that is just stocks and REITS, then that is crazy nuts risky, which is also ok if your really, really understand that is what you want to do.

I dunno...REIT's instead of bonds...you might have misinterpreted some things. OTOH, one of my sons has been investing for a dozen years or so, has never sold, and is 100% international, no bonds. Yes, we have some interesting father - son discussions.

A poll in this situation is not appropriate. Don't change the bonds for REITs, stay with bonds. Otherwise you have a 100% stocks / 0% bonds asset allocation. For a lot of reasons, the maximum risk you should take is 80% stocks / 20% bonds.

I will keep an extra 100k in cash or GICs. This will be used if a major correction occurs, but it will also be used as a back up for living expenses.

Is it just a 3 fund portfolio, or are there 4 asset classes? Is the 100k in cash part of your retirement AA? I think you have to clearly define what it's for so you know exactly what the AA of your retirement portfolio is.

If the 100k is not part of your retirement portfolio, why are you going from no equity to 100% equity? Why were at 0 before this?

Paul

When times are good, investors tend to forget about risk and focus on opportunity. When times are bad, investors tend to forget about opportunity and focus on risk.

My allocation to REITs was somewhat inspired by David Swenson's portfolio.

Staying out of bonds is a choice I made for two reasons. The first reason is that for everyone who says to invest in bonds right now, there are an equal number of people advising against them. The second reason is that given the time horizon, I don't see why, at this stage, occupying a significant portion of my tax-free space with bonds is a good idea.

Vanguard's Target Retirement 2045 fund only has 10% in bonds. My investment will be less risky than this since I will be holding 20% in cash.

ofcmetz wrote:REIT's are more volatile and risky than many stocks in my opinion. They are in no way a substitute for bonds. Your portfolio is 100% equity as you state it. Now if you are investing 400K as you say, and then keeping 100K in cash that is a different story.

Vanguard sees REITs as less risky than the Total International Stock Index.

livesoft wrote:If you need us to vote on it, then you are not really committed. You need to get to the point where you think, "I don't care what anybody else thinks ... I'm going all in!"

Let me know when you do this because that's the day I will probably sell everything.

The day is close. I've never been more ready than now.

dbr wrote:I agree. Reasoning that one has a 3-fund portfolio except that REITs are substituted for bonds causes one to worry that you have not understood the basic starting point of determining stock/bond allocation. You may also not understand what a REIT is. It is also concerning that an additional $100K is "held back" when it would seem more rational to include that asset in the asset allocation. I assume you might be in Canada where we interpret GIC to be similar to a US CD, and not to some kind of indexed annuity insurance product.

It could still be that your proposed allocation is actually ok, although it is very risky*, as pointed out by a previous poster. Personally I would not favor starting out in investing with 20% (or is it really 16%) tilted to REITs.

*80/20 is very risky. If you want to think of the part that is just stocks and REITS, then that is crazy nuts risky, which is also ok if your really, really understand that is what you want to do.

Yes, I am referring to a Guaranteed Investment Certificate. I am from Canada, and also have a basic understanding of REITs.

The 80/20 allocation is riskier than others, but as I pointed out in a previous response, some of Vanguard's TR funds are riskier.

thebogledude wrote:Also assuming this is in your taxable account? Allocation may or may not be risky, depending on your age and risk tolerance. I would go all in on International so you can tax-loss harvest.

About 95k of the portfolio will be in tax-advantaged space (maxed). So I will place REITs in there.

Grt2bOutdoors wrote:Let me know whent you are going in on the Reits - I'll sell you mine.

If the 400K is 80% of your holdings - why not mimic the allocation you've selected in taxable - 20% in reserves, 80% at risk? 100% all-in, experience is a tough task-master.

I'm not sure I follow the second part of your question ...

LadyGeek wrote:A poll in this situation is not appropriate. Don't change the bonds for REITs, stay with bonds. Otherwise you have a 100% stocks / 0% bonds asset allocation. For a lot of reasons, the maximum risk you should take is 80% stocks / 20% bonds.

I've already received good advice from Financial Webring from a tax perspective. You will note that I made many posts on that forum last week. I'm aware of the tax implications for my investment.

In the last couple of days, some of the folks on there have told me that I'm suffering from analysis paralysis and that I'm trying to get things too perfect. In other words, they are encouraging me to stop tinkering with my portfolio composition and AA - to take the leap and be done with it.

WHL wrote:I would absolutely DCA with that amount of initial investment.

Isn't lump sum a better position to take 2/3rds of the time?

pkcrafter wrote:Is it just a 3 fund portfolio, or are there 4 asset classes? Is the 100k in cash part of your retirement AA? I think you have to clearly define what it's for so you know exactly what the AA of your retirement portfolio is.

If the 100k is not part of your retirement portfolio, why are you going from no equity to 100% equity? Why were at 0 before this?

Paul

I would have 4 asset classes, with cash being one of them.

I was at 0 before this because I didn't know much about investing. I sort of had a "casino" perspective of the stock market.

20% in cash. Good luck keeping up with inflation on having that much in a Money Market Account or Savings paying less than 1%. Even if a Bond's NAV decreases for a while, the distribution yield can more than make up for it over time.

I voted "go for it" but almost wish I said "other". I really wanted to say "first be sure you are happy with your AA and then go for it." Be sure your AA is attractive to you in both up and down markets otherwise you may not be able to "stay the course."

With those REITs (which I like, btw) you are 80/20 equity/fixed-income. Seems a bit aggressive. My tendency is to settle on an equity/FI split then carve out a small portion of the equities for RETIs.

I voted other.......... didn't read all your old threads but did see you have been paralyzed worrying this since October. My chief concern is I know nothing about how you came to be sitting on $500k cash. Is this from bailing out in 2008, or what? If it has any bailing aspect, then 0% bonds is not a good idea. 20% bonds is not a good idea either. Maybe you could try 40%.

What other financial facts go with this $500k cash? I can imagine only some that would make me say OK to that AA.JW

So you say 30 years is your time frame,that being said ,choose YOUR asset allocation thengo "All In" and sign an investment contract with yourself,that you WILL absolutely stay the course,as the market goes throught its bull and bear cycles for the next three decades.Just keep reinvesting the cap gains and dividends along the way.You WILL be rewarded. Time is on your side.

"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee

Cash as bonds, and 20% of portfolio in it, is aggressive but not crazy.

I just don't think you have the conviction to stick with your plan if markets start falling. Which suggests to me that even though 80% stocks and 20% cash/ultrashort bonds is not crazy, it's still not the right AA for you.

1. The DCA idea is more to reduce the chances that you'll regret your decisions if stocks selloff in the next month or two. How are you going to feel if stocks drop 20-30% next month? If you can deal with it go ahead and invest it all now. If not, DCA might be the way to go.

2. Your asset allocation is kind of weird the way you've configured it. If all of the 500k is for retirement you should treat it all as one account. So you proposed asset allocation is actually:

So a 80/20 stock/bond split is pretty reasonable, but holding the bond position as cash (0 duration) in a retirement account doesn't make much sense; you should at least invest in Short-Term Gov't bonds, unless of course you're getting CD/GIC rates that are really good.

3. I haven't read all of your other posts, but with this much money at a relatively young age do you have a NEED to be so heavily invested in equities? How about a 60/40 stock/bond mix? I really fear that being heavily invested in stocks you're going to sell out when the market falls.

I would recommend that you take 1-2 years living expenses out of the money to use as an emergency fund, then invest the remainder as:Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) - 36%Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) - 12%Vanguard REIT (VNQ) - 12%Short-term Bond (BSV) - 40%

a) I dont' remember your earlier posts, but what are you currently invested in? If it's all 'cash', then i would DCA instead of jumping in all at once. However, if you have some sort of allocation that has significant risk in it (like your proposed one), then you could probably do it in one fell swoop.

b) I agree that you should include the cash as part of your portfolio. So instead of what you wrote:

c) Assuming you plan to retire in Canada,I dont' think it would be wrong if you wanted to have a bit of a bias toward Canadian stocks or bonds. Although I don't know the investment vehicles to attempt such a thing.

d) The calling your cash as "reserves" sounds like you think you might be able to time the market with it. Which I doubt is true, so I wouldn't recommend it.

I'm waiting for your poll that starts with: Here's what I actually bought; what do you think?

Will we get one of those?...

Calm Man wrote:The suspense is killing me. Newb, did you do it?

Fairly soon.

livesoft wrote:I think the OP will be too embarassed not to stay the course after all the ribbing we have given him/her. After all, analysis paralysis works both ways.

letsgobobby wrote:I just don't think you have the conviction to stick with your plan if markets start falling. Which suggests to me that even though 80% stocks and 20% cash/ultrashort bonds is not crazy, it's still not the right AA for you.

I'm not sure why some folks don't think I will stay the course. If there is a downturn in the market, it would be foolish to sell unless I needed the money for an emergency of some sort. I don't anticipate this happening.

Several years ago, I bought an AIG stock and saw it lose about 50% of its value. I waited almost an entire year for it to recover and sold it then. It was on a much smaller scale, mind you, but the same principle applies.

JW Nearly Retired wrote:I voted other.......... didn't read all your old threads but did see you have been paralyzed worrying this since October. My chief concern is I know nothing about how you came to be sitting on $500k cash. Is this from bailing out in 2008, or what? If it has any bailing aspect, then 0% bonds is not a good idea. 20% bonds is not a good idea either. Maybe you could try 40%.

What other financial facts go with this $500k cash? I can imagine only some that would make me say OK to that AA.JW

I had $0 invested in 2008... The cash was accumulated in the last 3 years thanks to my online business. But it has been extremely volatile in the last 10 months or so, which has caused me to look for other avenues to grow my savings.

gt4715b wrote:1. The DCA idea is more to reduce the chances that you'll regret your decisions if stocks selloff in the next month or two. How are you going to feel if stocks drop 20-30% next month? If you can deal with it go ahead and invest it all now. If not, DCA might be the way to go.

2. Your asset allocation is kind of weird the way you've configured it. If all of the 500k is for retirement you should treat it all as one account. So you proposed asset allocation is actually:

So a 80/20 stock/bond split is pretty reasonable, but holding the bond position as cash (0 duration) in a retirement account doesn't make much sense; you should at least invest in Short-Term Gov't bonds, unless of course you're getting CD/GIC rates that are really good.

3. I haven't read all of your other posts, but with this much money at a relatively young age do you have a NEED to be so heavily invested in equities? How about a 60/40 stock/bond mix? I really fear that being heavily invested in stocks you're going to sell out when the market falls.

I would recommend that you take 1-2 years living expenses out of the money to use as an emergency fund, then invest the remainder as:Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF (VTI) - 36%Vanguard Total International Stock ETF (VXUS) - 12%Vanguard REIT (VNQ) - 12%Short-term Bond (BSV) - 40%

Losing 20-30% in a month would be depressing. But cashing out at that time, thereby losing any hope of a recovery - would be even worse.

I sometimes feel that I won't meet my retirement goals if I'm not heavily invested into equities right now. My goal is to have 20x my current net worth in retirement.

Also: we sometimes hear about seasoned investors who regret not taking on more risk when they were younger. This is my chance to take action, and not regret that decision down the road.

Easy Rhino wrote:c) Assuming you plan to retire in Canada,I dont' think it would be wrong if you wanted to have a bit of a bias toward Canadian stocks or bonds. Although I don't know the investment vehicles to attempt such a thing.

In the last 24 hours or so, I've been thinking about using the MSCI Canada Index ETF (VCE) in my tax-free savings account. This would represent about ~5% of my portfolio, but it would max out the space in that account. My understanding is that this fund is the equivalent to the US's VTI ETF, but for Canada instead. My main reason for doing this would be to not have to pay any withholding tax on the dividends.

InvestorNewb wrote:I'm not sure why some folks don't think I will stay the course. If there is a downturn in the market, it would be foolish to sell unless I needed the money for an emergency of some sort. I don't anticipate this happening.

Several years ago, I bought an AIG stock and saw it lose about 50% of its value. I waited almost an entire year for it to recover and sold it then. It was on a much smaller scale, mind you, but the same principle applies.

JW Nearly Retired wrote: I voted other.......... didn't read all your old threads but did see you have been paralyzed worrying this since October. My chief concern is I know nothing about how you came to be sitting on $500k cash. Is this from bailing out in 2008, or what? If it has any bailing aspect, then 0% bonds is not a good idea. 20% bonds is not a good idea either. Maybe you could try 40%.

What other financial facts go with this $500k cash? I can imagine only some that would make me say OK to that AA.JW

I had $0 invested in 2008... The cash was accumulated in the last 3 years thanks to my online business. But it has been extremely volatile in the last 10 months or so, which has caused me to look for other avenues to grow my savings.

OK, I changed my vote to lump sum. Good luck.JWps..... it won't let me make a change, but you can use my intention to break the current tie.

I do agree that your allocation is too aggressive and would recommend an 80/20 stocks to bonds. But with 100K in cash maybe you are already there and you just need to put the cash into a total bond fund.

InvestorNewb wrote:In the last 24 hours or so, I've been thinking about using the MSCI Canada Index ETF (VCE) in my tax-free savings account. This would represent about ~5% of my portfolio, but it would max out the space in that account. My understanding is that this fund is the equivalent to the US's VTI ETF, but for Canada instead. My main reason for doing this would be to not have to pay any withholding tax on the dividends.

InvestorNewb wrote:In the last 24 hours or so, I've been thinking about using the MSCI Canada Index ETF (VCE) in my tax-free savings account. This would represent about ~5% of my portfolio, but it would max out the space in that account. My understanding is that this fund is the equivalent to the US's VTI ETF, but for Canada instead. My main reason for doing this would be to not have to pay any withholding tax on the dividends.

InvestorNewb wrote:In the last 24 hours or so, I've been thinking about using the MSCI Canada Index ETF (VCE) in my tax-free savings account. This would represent about ~5% of my portfolio, but it would max out the space in that account. My understanding is that this fund is the equivalent to the US's VTI ETF, but for Canada instead. My main reason for doing this would be to not have to pay any withholding tax on the dividends.

dickenjb wrote:I do not understand why someone would go from 100% cash to 80% equities. Does this $500K represent his entire portfolio? How old is he? What is his time horizon? More questions than answers here.

John, from his other threads I think he came into the money from a business in a shirt period of time. It's a very good question.

I also saved ~25% of my original net worth in cash, which should help me sleep better at night. This is not part of the 400k.

I've applied a DRIP to my TFSA account to re-invest all dividends back into VCE. DRIPs aren't available in the other accounts, so I will be re-investing those dividends manually.

I would like to thank all of the folks on here who helped shape my decision-making process. I was pretty much clueless about investing before arriving here, and I have definitely learned a lot in the last 6 months.

I will continue to be an active member on the forums, as I still have plenty to learn.